ReviewThrombosis journal2018
Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis may cause more harm than benefit: an evidence-based analysis of Canadian and international guidelines.
Review in Thrombosis journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recommendations from guidelines for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in pregnant women with inherited thrombophilia.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban for Extremely Aged Patients with Venous Thromboembolism: A Retrospective, Cross-Sectional Real-World Study.Clinical interventions in aging · 2024Article
- Case report: A case of perineal prolapse of giant uterine fibroids complicated by multiple pulmonary embolisms and deep venous thrombosis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Systematic reviews of observational studies of Risk of Thrombosis and Bleeding in General and Gynecologic Surgery (ROTBIGGS): introduction and methodology.Systematic reviews · 2021Review
- Is venous thromboembolism prophylaxis beneficial in upper limb major joint replacement surgery? A systematic review.Shoulder & elbow · 2021Review
- Routine surveillance for diagnosis of venous thromboembolism after pleurectomy for malignant pleural mesothelioma.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2020Article
- Predictive Factors of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Gynecologic Cancer Survivors with Lower Extremity Edema: A Single-Center and Retrospective Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Do Inpatients Receive Risk-Based Prophylactic Treatment for Thrombotic Events?Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A majority of deep vein thromboses identified in screening studies of hospitalized patients remain clinically insignificant. Guidelines based on these studies markedly overestimate the risk of clinical venous thromboembolism (VTE) and the benefit of heparin prophylaxis. Accordingly, in 2012, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) removed screening studies from the 9th edition of its Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy guideline (AT9), and downgraded recommendations. Involvement of authors of the 8th edition (AT8) was restricted due to financial and intellectual conflicts of interest. However, the first author of AT8 subsequently wrote a "Getting Started Kit," widely distributed to help Canadian hospitals develop VTE protocols. Based on screening studies reporting
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.